With the recent news that Marussia is having financial issues and with HRT’s future possibly in the air if they don’t pick up their performance or get more money, could we see them leave the sport in a few years, which would leave the grid with four less cars, if replacements can’t be found. If this would happen I think that teams should be allowed to run three cars if they wanted to. I could see the big 3 (Ferrari, Mclaren, Red Bull) and possibly Lotus and Mercedes running an extra car. This would then fill up the missing cars and would probably make the grid a little bit more competitive, with four cars that aren’t a few seconds off the pace. In terms of the Constructors Championship I think that only the two highest scoring cars in the team should count, so that really wouldn’t change much. Plus it would be a pretty incredible sight to see the tifosi go absolutely crazy if Ferrari were to sweep the podium in Monza. Just throwing the idea out there to see what everyone else thought.

The midfield/privateer teams like Sauber, Williams and Force India would stand to lose the most should 3-car teams be allowed. Running 3 cars requires enormous expenditure beyond the reach of all but the best-funded teams (the aforementioned “Big Three”). With more competitive cars on the grid, the midfield teams are indirectly demoted in the running order.

– Only the top two results per team are counted, so Ferrari gets points for 1st and 2nd.

– Yet the Sauber driver only receives in points for 4th place, rather than the 3rd place he technically finished in when the lowest-ranked Ferrari is excluded. If you factor in the other 3-car teams, the midfield teams get bumped down further and further, receiving less points than they would score otherwise.

– The Ferrari driver who finished 3rd walks away empty handed. Thus the 4th placed driver scores more points than the one who finished 3rd? Counting only the top two finishers punishes the team’s third driver, so why have him in the first place?

Overall, it opens up a can of worms that affects the complexions of both championships.

Realistically, 3-car teams will never happen. Most frontrunning teams (except maybe Ferrari, who seem to be the only ones interested in it) would rather use the expenses of a third car for research and development. Midfield teams not able to run 3 cars would veto the idea as they lose out in the points standings.

@sigman1998 – That does make it somewhat more feasible from the individual drivers’ perspective, but what about the teams? Still using the Ferrari 1-2-3 scenario, the 3rd placed Ferrari creates a “blank spot” whose points count toward the WDC, but not the WCC.

What about the constructor whose driver comes in 4th – do they receive constructors’ points for 4th place, where their driver finished, or 3rd place, since the 3rd placed Ferrari doesn’t count toward the WCC?

20 cars isn’t great, but we’ve seen it recently enough in the past, and that it managed fine, that we don’t need the 3 car gimmick/nightmare. There is virtually no scenario where I can imagine it working in F1.

I would prefer customer cars to be honest although even that has its complications.

If the likes of HRT could run a previous year midfield car (lets say a Sauber) then they’ll save a fortune in not having to develop a car from scratch and Sauber will make some money selling the cars. Sell a chassis minus engine, gearbox, KERS and suspension or something along those lines, let the customer teams figure the rest out. Award the customer teams half points in the WCC to compensate, it’s not a great idea but it would be a heck of a lot better than HRT trundling around at the back of the field for the rest of eternity.

Of course if a team could design and build a car knowing it would be competitive for 2-3 years with a rebuild each winter then that would be somewhat helpful in cutting costs and retaining a healthy grid. That certainly can’t happen while aerodynamics are the deciding factor of the competitive order.

If the likes of HRT could run a previous year midfield car (lets say a Sauber) then they’ll save a fortune in not having to develop a car from scratch and Sauber will make some money selling the cars. Sell a chassis minus engine, gearbox, KERS and suspension or something along those lines, let the customer teams figure the rest out. Award the customer teams half points in the WCC to compensate, it’s not a great idea but it would be a heck of a lot better than HRT trundling around at the back of the field for the rest of eternity.

I’m not so sure. I respected Minardi for staying there, even after all those years, a lot more than I did with Super Aguri beating Alonso in Canada 2007 because they were racing the RA106 which won at Hungary the year before.

It’s not good for them because they don’t get money, but I respect HRT a lot. Considering the way they started, and how long it’s been, it’s amaizing for such a little team from such a weird place for an F1 team.

There isn’t an easy solution. If the purpose is to fill up the grid by reducing running costs:

– Running three-car teams only gives the big-budget teams an advantage, while hampering the chances of the midfield teams. Even if you adjusted the classification/points system to reflect the “best two drivers out of three” system, the racing itself, and the outcome of the race, would be influenced by the presence of additional cars on the grid – for instance, more traffic to negotiate on the opening lap.

– Customer cars seems a more feasible way of bringing costs down, and allowing teams to stay in the sport. But I can’t shake the feeling that it defies the term “constructor”. F1 teams have always been required to build their own cars, chassis and all (though admittedly, there have been exceptions). Changing this seems to alter the very nature of the sport.

– Maybe a “customer parts” system? Teams build their own chassis, but can purchase key components, like KERS, gearbox and aerodynamic packages, from the bigger teams, in a manner similar to the IndyCar aero kit system. Of course, I’m sounding like a massive hypocrite suggesting this, because it still doesn’t quite fulfill the definition of a “constructor”.

– A Resource Restriction Agreement would be the most concrete way to cut costs and keep teams running, but we’ll likely never see it come into force, seeing as how the teams are bickering over its merits and the specifics.

I think that allowing three-car teams would be approaching the problem from the wrong end. More should be done to keep the current small teams alive and attract new ones to the sport. For instance, the revenues must be divided more equally between the teams.